Update: this chip is a redesigned A5 built on Samsung's 32nm process.

Update: There's a reason why you wait for an outfit like Chipworks to dissect a chip before making definite proclamations about it—their teardown of this chip is still in progress, but so far they've discovered that this chip is a redesign of the A5 that is still manufactured on Samsung's 32nm process. A die shot is reportedly forthcoming, at which point we'll know more about just how this chip has changed compared to the existing A5. We'll be following their updates here.

Earlier this year, Apple filed some paperwork with the FCC that pointed to a revised version of the Apple TV. Early speculation suggested a slightly smaller version of the set-top box that used an upgraded Apple A5X system-on-a-chip (SoC), but a rare official comment from Apple on the subject insisted that the tweaked components required new regulatory approval and wouldn't actually change the features of the product.

Now it looks like this tweaked Apple TV is being spotted in the wild, and MacRumors has identified the product's most substantial tweak: a newer, smaller version of the Apple A5 SoC that was originally introduced in the iPad 2 back in 2011. True to Apple's word, this tweaked SoC would have the same features and performance level as the A5 that was introduced in the third-generation Apple TV, but it should consume less power than its predecessor, and it has wide-ranging implications for Apple's future iOS products.

The Apple A5: What a long, strange trip it’s been

Enlarge/ The tweaked Apple TV includes a smaller (and more power-efficient) version of Apple's A5 SoC.

Apple has produced more variants of the Apple A5 than it has for any of its other chips so far. The original A5 (model number S5L8940) featured two Cortex A9 CPU cores paired with a dual-core Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX453MP2 GPU. This chip was manufactured on Samsung's 45nm process and shipped with two CPU clock speeds: roughly 800MHz in the iPhone 4S and roughly 1GHz in the iPad 2.

About a year later, Apple revisited the chip, giving it its first manufacturing process shrink. This new 32nm Apple A5 (model number S5L8942, also manufactured by Samsung) showed up in two products: the third-generation Apple TV (where one of its CPU cores was disabled) and in the tweaked version of the iPad 2 that Apple continues to sell for $399 (this version kept both CPU cores and the 1GHz CPU clock speed of the original). The revised iPad 2, on average, featured 20 to 30 percent better battery life than the version with the 45nm Apple A5, an impressive feat given that all of the other components (including the screen and the battery) remained the same. This version of the A5 also made it into the fifth-generation iPod touch, which features battery life more-or-less similar to the iPhone 4S despite having a smaller battery and a larger screen.

This new A5 (model number S5L8947), then, is the second major revision to the chip. It reportedly measures about 6mm by 6mm, compared to 8.19mm by 8.68mm for the 32nm A5 and 10.09mm by 12.15mm for the original 45nm version. We'll only know for sure who's making this chip and on what manufacturing process when a site like Chipworks gets a clear photo of the die, but one reasonably safe explanation for the size difference is that the new A5 is likely being built on a smaller manufacturing process—a 28nm process would be the most logical option, if only because it's the next smallest process that's currently shipping from any foundry other than Intel's.

This is already kicking off a fresh round of speculation that Apple is finally looking to ditch Samsung for chip production, likely in favor of Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC), the foundry that also handles manufacturing duties for Qualcomm, Nvidia, and a number of other prominent companies—its 28nm process is mature and is now humming along smoothly after some early hiccups.

This years-old rumor continues to find purchase in part because of the litigious and antagonistic public relationship between Apple and Samsung, but we have yet to see anything from a source I would consider reliable. Without more concrete information, I hesitate to say that Apple is actually moving production to TSMC (especially since Samsung is also ramping up its own 28nm chip production for its Exynos 5 Octa), but it remains a distinct possibility and it could go a long way toward reducing Apple's reliance on one of its chief competitors.

Whoever makes it, the implications are the same

Whatever the manufacturer, it's instructive to look at the path of Apple's 32nm chips to see where the company is going to go with this new manufacturing process (assuming that is in fact what is happening here). First, Apple used it to make a new version of the mature, established Apple A5 for the Apple TV (followed shortly by the iPad 2). This gave Apple and Samsung the chance to iron out any complications in the manufacturing process, and even if something bad had happened (catastrophically low yields, for instance), the stakes for both products are relatively low. Then, over the next few months, 32nm chips with both new and mature architectures rolled out to basically all of Apple's major products: first in the iPhone 5 and the fifth-generation iPod touch, and then to the fourth-generation iPad and the iPad mini.

In all cases, Apple took advantage of the new process to either increase performance in an existing form factor (the A6X in the iPad); offer smaller products with the same performance as previous, larger products (the iPad mini); or both (the iPhone 5 and iPod touch). Assuming that we see the same rollout process for these purported 28nm chips, let's talk through the possibilities for the iOS products that Apple is likely to introduce this year.

The iPhone

New chips could open the door to both faster and cheaper iPhones.

Jacqui Cheng

Assuming Apple follows its own conventions, we'll be seeing an iPhone 5S in the mid-summer-to-early-autumn timeframe, and a smaller process gives Apple room to increase the phone's performance without sacrificing the phone's battery life or signature thinness (though whether the phone would use a faster version of the current iPhone's A6 or some new, upgraded A7 processor is anyone's guess).

There are also those "low-cost iPhone" rumors that have been hanging around for a couple of years now. We'll only believe that this hypothetical phone is happening when we see it, but a 28nm Apple A5 seems like an ideal way to offer iPhone 4S-level performance in a phone that costs less than the current 4S, both because it can use a smaller battery and because 28nm A5 chips should cost Apple less than 45nm A5 chips do.

The iPad and iPad mini

28nm chips could help make the big iPad smaller and the small iPad more powerful.

Jacqui Cheng

The full-size iPad is about due for a visual overhaul—its design has been essentially unchanged since the iPad 2 was introduced two years ago, and the Retina versions of the tablet were actually a bit thicker and heavier than the iPad 2. The rumor mill's best information suggests that the iPad Jumbo will be getting an iPad mini-like redesign this year, and a more power-efficient process could help Apple shrink the battery enough to make this possible.

We like the size of the iPad mini, but we're less enamored of its non-Retina display. As in the big iPad, though, putting a Retina display in the smaller iPad will require a commensurate bump in processing power to push all of those pixels. A theoretical 28nm Apple A5X (or A6X), along with more efficient display technology, could allow Apple to fit the innards of a Retina iPad in a future iPad mini's diminutive chassis, the same way the 32nm shrink allowed the company to fit the guts of the iPad 2 in the current iPad mini.

The iPod touch

The iPod touch could get faster or more power efficient. It could also stay the same.

Andrew Cunningham

The fifth-generation iPod touch showed that Apple is no longer committed to refreshing iPod hardware every year anymore, but a 28nm process opens up a couple different possible avenues: either put an A6 in the iPod touch, increasing performance while keeping the battery life constant, or replace the current model's 32nm A5 with a 28nm version, keeping performance constant while increasing the battery life. There's no saying whether either of these will happen (the iPhone 4S was never tweaked to use the 32nm A5, after all), but either is possible if Apple chooses to update the hardware.

A predictable progression

Apple has a way of playing down product specifications in its product announcements, advertisements, and even many of its product pages. But if you pay attention to what actually goes into their devices, the company expends a lot of effort to keep its chips current (if not cutting-edge), though iOS can be so heavily optimized for these chips that Apple doesn't necessarily need to be drawn into the specifications race that we see on the Android side of the fence.

The 32nm process has done well for Apple, but Qualcomm, Nvidia, and others are all currently shipping or planning to ship 28nm chips this year, and the space and power savings this process provides would obviously give Apple some convenient headroom for this year's crop of iOS products, from a heat and power-usage perspective. We'll wait for someone to take this die apart before saying for sure who makes it and what process it's on, but either way a 28nm chip from Apple is the next logical step, and testing it in a relatively low-volume product like the Apple TV first is consistent with the company's past behavior.

59 Reader Comments

It seems doubtful that this die shrink is just for the benefit of the ATV or other existing products- the previous one ended up being used in the Mini. So, as the author says, it seems likely this is headed for a cheap iPhone.

Also, this makes a lot more sense than the die shrunk A5X rumors we heard about- the A5X was Apple's biggest and most power-hungry chip so far. The A6 has at least 75% of the GPU and double the CPU making it better in most situations while using less die area. When the retina Mini comes around, it will probably use an A6 or A6X, with or without a die shrink to 28nm. I don't think the A5X is coming back.

I wonder why Apple isn't leaning on Intel to fab its high end mobile chips on the FinFET process... it would give them such a leg up in the space that competitors would have to scramble hard to catch up.

The SoC size and power consumption are not the reasons the iPad Mini has a low resolution display. Given Apple's track record so far and the way iOS's display stack is designed they're in a tough spot because doubling the screen resolution in both directions is extremely hard for an 8" display and multiplying by a non-integer amount (1.5X for example) would be far more complicated for everyone involved.

I wonder why Apple isn't leaning on Intel to fab its high end mobile chips on the FinFET process... it would give them such a leg up in the space that competitors would have to scramble hard to catch up.

Intel's process node lead is a huge advantage that they don't want to hand away. I'm sure they could be convinced to fab for Apple but it would cost significantly more than TSMC or GlobalFoundries would and that would eat into Apple's margins, not to mention the fact that Intel builds out capacity based entirely on their own sales projections so they probably wouldn't be able to match Apple's demand for at least a few quarters, and their manufacturing processes were never meant to produce anything other than their own designs.

I wonder why Apple isn't leaning on Intel to fab its high end mobile chips on the FinFET process... it would give them such a leg up in the space that competitors would have to scramble hard to catch up.

there were rumors that they were looking to use intel for fabrication.

I am a huge fan of AppleTV. Have versions 1, 2 and latest in the home. It does seem a bit silly not to further upgrade the device except for less chip power and re-release, unless you really believe that AppleTV is a just a toy to mess with upgrades to improve the food chain.

As far as the ipad goes its still dumb that they chose to make the mini to be 3/16 of inch too large to fit inside a mans jacket pocket. Maybe thats the reason why women prevail not some deeper inner meaning. Yo Steve from the depths above (so that he po'ed might say h*ll) don't you want me to buy a second pad? I'd love two, help me spend more money with you.

My last comment about the Apple farm, is the rumored watch. This is brilliant. Lower priced entry that will have better margins with a mass purchased device and give what all mobile device and cell service providers want- loyalty.

Given Apple's track record so far and the way iOS's display stack is designed they're in a tough spot because doubling the screen resolution in both directions is extremely hard for an 8" display and multiplying by a non-integer amount (1.5X for example) would be far more complicated for everyone involved.

It's really easy, actually. The iPad mini uses original iPhone-density displays. Pixel-doubling is simply a case of switching to the iPhone 4 onwards-density displays. This needs a bigger badder GPU than the A5's. In theory the A6 should be able to handle it as it's just as GPU-powered as the A5X.

Given Apple's track record so far and the way iOS's display stack is designed they're in a tough spot because doubling the screen resolution in both directions is extremely hard for an 8" display and multiplying by a non-integer amount (1.5X for example) would be far more complicated for everyone involved.

It's really easy, actually. The iPad mini uses original iPhone-density displays. Pixel-doubling is simply a case of switching to the iPhone 4 onwards-density displays. This needs a bigger badder GPU than the A5's. In theory the A6 should be able to handle it as it's just as GPU-powered as the A5X.

I'd be really impressed if they managed to get someone to make a 2048x1536 8" LCD for them with the requisite quality at affordable yields.

I guess since we're getting 1080p phone screens at 5" it's not too far off but there's also implications for heat and battery life.

I wonder why Apple isn't leaning on Intel to fab its high end mobile chips on the FinFET process... it would give them such a leg up in the space that competitors would have to scramble hard to catch up.

Intel's process node lead is a huge advantage that they don't want to hand away. I'm sure they could be convinced to fab for Apple but it would cost significantly more than TSMC or GlobalFoundries would and that would eat into Apple's margins, not to mention the fact that Intel builds out capacity based entirely on their own sales projections so they probably wouldn't be able to match Apple's demand for at least a few quarters, and their manufacturing processes were never meant to produce anything other than their own designs.

As was recently reported by Reuters, Intel is having issues keeping all their expensive fabs busy with the global slump in PC sales. They may have no choice but to accelerate the process of producing other people's chips that they have already begun.

Quote:

Manufacturing chips on behalf of other companies is a major departure for Intel, which for decades has based its business on using its manufacturing prowess to offer its own PC chips superior to rival products. As PC sales contract and Intel's fabrication plants operate at less than full capacity, the chipmaker sees an opportunity to fill idle production lines while earning new revenue.

Intel said last week it will open up its prized manufacturing technology to make chips designed by fellow chipmaker Altera -- snagging its first sizeable customer in a contract manufacturing, or "foundry", business expected to grow.

That has spurred talk of an Apple deal. A source close to one of the companies says Intel and Apple executives have discussed the issue in the past year but no agreement has been reached.

I believe one of the sticking points is that Intel would like to see Apple switch the iPad over to Intel CPU's while they manufacture Apple's CPU designs for the smaller iDevices.

Apple would gain access to Intel's enormous process advantage, allowing it's iPhone to have an enormous battery life advantage.

Intel would gain access to Apple's market volume allowing them to run their expensive fabs at full capacity and, more importantly, Apple's willingness to finance it's suppliers manufacturing equipment. Fabs are getting more and more expensive every year.

I think the difference between Intel's margins and TSMC's margins are on the order of 10%, so I doubt that cost will be a sticking point.

Given Apple's track record so far and the way iOS's display stack is designed they're in a tough spot because doubling the screen resolution in both directions is extremely hard for an 8" display and multiplying by a non-integer amount (1.5X for example) would be far more complicated for everyone involved.

It's really easy, actually. The iPad mini uses original iPhone-density displays. Pixel-doubling is simply a case of switching to the iPhone 4 onwards-density displays. This needs a bigger badder GPU than the A5's. In theory the A6 should be able to handle it as it's just as GPU-powered as the A5X.

Also, this makes a lot more sense than the die shrunk A5X rumors we heard about- the A5X was Apple's biggest and most power-hungry chip so far. The A6 has at least 75% of the GPU and double the CPU making it better in most situations while using less die area. When the retina Mini comes around, it will probably use an A6 or A6X, with or without a die shrink to 28nm. I don't think the A5X is coming back.

One issue with the A5X is that it requires external DRAM rather than the stacked DRAM of the A5/A6. That would have necessitated larger internal changes than would be worthwhile in a silent Apple TV update.

nimro wrote:

aeolist wrote:

Given Apple's track record so far and the way iOS's display stack is designed they're in a tough spot because doubling the screen resolution in both directions is extremely hard for an 8" display and multiplying by a non-integer amount (1.5X for example) would be far more complicated for everyone involved.

It's really easy, actually. The iPad mini uses original iPhone-density displays. Pixel-doubling is simply a case of switching to the iPhone 4 onwards-density displays. This needs a bigger badder GPU than the A5's. In theory the A6 should be able to handle it as it's just as GPU-powered as the A5X.

The "X" variants also double the memory bus to 128-bit in order to better feed the GPU so the A5X is still the better fit at high resolutions than the A6. The A5X is generally regarded as underpowered since it's only 2x as powerful as the A5, but needs to drive 4x the pixels. It's use in a potential retina iPad Mini would also put the iPad Mini two SoC generations behind the equivalent next-gen iPad rather than one generation behind as is the case for the late 2012 models.

If Apple does go to a 6 month release cycle and release a spring 2013 iPad Mini then it'll likely be a 28nm A6 with a 1024x768 laminated full gamut IPS screen with better contrast as an incremental update. The fall 2013 iPad Mini, whether as the subsequent 6 month refresh or as the usual annual release, will likely be 28nm A6X with Retina Display. The corresponding spring 2013 full size iPad could then be a 28nm A6X with redesigned case and a fall 2013 full size iPad would be a 28nm A7X.

Given Apple's track record so far and the way iOS's display stack is designed they're in a tough spot because doubling the screen resolution in both directions is extremely hard for an 8" display and multiplying by a non-integer amount (1.5X for example) would be far more complicated for everyone involved.

It's really easy, actually. The iPad mini uses original iPhone-density displays. Pixel-doubling is simply a case of switching to the iPhone 4 onwards-density displays. This needs a bigger badder GPU than the A5's. In theory the A6 should be able to handle it as it's just as GPU-powered as the A5X.

People seem to forget that one of the main design goals of the iPad mini was to produce a device that was more affordable.

Adding a retina display would require both a beefier GPU and more back lighting. Those require a bigger battery. (just as we saw with the change to retina with iPad 3)

All this would pretty much guarantee a price increase.

edit: It occurs to me that Sharp's new IGZO retina displays are more expensive and would still require a beefier CPU , but at least they would not require more power or more back lighting.

There's a very interesting undercurrent to these numbers. People are talking 28nm but that doesn't quite add up. If we assume a margin of error on that die measurement out to 7x7mm (~49mm^2) then we might still be in the bounds of a 28nm process alongside added area saving from, say, better layout efficiency. That's a bit of a squeeze, though.

If the new A5 really is 6x6mm (~36mm^2), then it's around 1/2 the area of the 32nm A5 (71.1mm^2). That strongly suggests a full node shrink.

The first candidate to manufacture that is Intel with their 22nm node. We know they're looking to open up idle manufacturing to third party chip designers, but this might be a bit early to be the fruits of those labours.

The second candidate is thus TSMC and their 20nm process. IIRC that's not due to come online in any volume until the end of this year / beginning of the next, but certain fruit related rumour sites have previously quoted sources saying that "Apple began verifying TSMC's 20nm process in August this year and may begin risk production in November (2012)". If that's true, then these could be the results of that "risk production". It does make a lot of sense - 20nm is supposed to provide something like 0.45x scaling over 28nm, so getting a die size 50% of Samsung's 32nm process ought to be eminently acheivable. Apple TV is low volume, so the dismal yields from a brand-new process would be relatively inconsequential whilst gaining them valuable hands-on experience.

Either way, I'm actually quite excited by this, even though I don't buy Apple...

I'm having trouble figuring out how this chip could be on a 28 nm process. If the 32 nm A5 is 70 mm^2 and this is about 36 mm^2, that is consistent with a full node shrink, not a half node. Going from 45 to 32 nm, the die shrunk by 41%.

Now before I begin any crazy rumors, let me work this out. Theoretically, going from 32 to 28 nm could shrink the die by up to 23%. So what are the other options besides 20/22 nm? Maybe I'm not considering the full picture with metal layer widths, etc. and the difference (32 to 28) is larger than 23%. Also, Apple could be producing a single core variant instead of disabling cores. However, if the rest of the SOC stays the same, shaving off one A9 core just isn't going to save much area, and it's probably a lot harder than it sounds. Also, I haven't heard any speculation that TSMC 20 nm is in production. So the options are: 1. Macrumors sucks at measuring dies and the chip is really 7x7 mm or more. 2. Apple is running a trial chip on Intel 22 nm. 3. The scaling between TSMC or Samsung 28 nm and Samsung 32 nm is much greater than expected.

The first candidate to manufacture that is Intel with their 22nm node. We know they're looking to open up idle manufacturing to third party chip designers, but this might be a bit early to be the fruits of those labours.

The second candidate is thus TSMC and their 20nm process. IIRC that's not due to come online in any volume until the end of this year / beginning of the next, but certain fruit related rumour sites have previously quoted sources saying that "Apple began verifying TSMC's 20nm process in August this year and may begin risk production in November (2012)". If that's true, then these could be the results of that "risk production". It does make a lot of sense - 20nm is supposed to provide something like 0.45x scaling over 28nm, so getting a die size 50% of Samsung's 32nm process ought to be eminently acheivable. Apple TV is low volume, so the dismal yields from a brand-new process would be relatively inconsequential whilst gaining them valuable hands-on experience.

Either way, I'm actually quite excited by this, even though I don't buy Apple...

Another reason to discount Intel is that Apple's CPUs will have to be completely redesigned to change over to a different manufacturing process.

We already know that well before Apple and Samsung's spat began, Apple was already looking at second sourcing it's CPU's at TSMC. There has been more than enough time to modify Apple's CPU's for TSMC's process.

There are multiple rumors about Intel and Apple, and they're reasonable enough that there are probably some talks going on, but we don't know the content of them.

Intel has been cagey about fabbing things that are not Intel IP. The phrasing recently has been one step short of "Hell No!", and they have begun fabbing FPGA chips on the logic that said chips don't compete with Intel in anyway. One could argue that Apple and Intel don't compete much - Intel might convince Android makers to switch to x86 now that there is a reference platform and a distribution for it, but they are much less likely to convince Apple to do so. The issue here is that the iPad certainly competes with Intel laptops.

It could also be very boring: Either using Intel's trailing edge process (32nm) just to get out from Samsung, or buying flash from IMFT.

I'm having trouble figuring out how this chip could be on a 28 nm process. If the 32 nm A5 is 70 mm^2 and this is about 36 mm^2, that is consistent with a full node shrink, not a half node. Going from 45 to 32 nm, the die shrunk by 41%.

Now before I begin any crazy rumors, let me work this out. Theoretically, going from 32 to 28 nm could shrink the die by up to 23%. So what are the other options besides 20/22 nm? Maybe I'm not considering the full picture with metal layer widths, etc. and the difference (32 to 28) is larger than 23%. Also, Apple could be producing a single core variant instead of disabling cores. However, if the rest of the SOC stays the same, shaving off one A9 core just isn't going to save much area, and it's probably a lot harder than it sounds. Also, I haven't heard any speculation that TSMC 20 nm is in production. So the options are: 1. Macrumors sucks at measuring dies and the chip is really 7x7 mm or more. 2. Apple is running a trial chip on Intel 22 nm. 3. The scaling between TSMC or Samsung 28 nm and Samsung 32 nm is much greater than expected.

I'm betting a combination of 1 and 3.

I, too noticed that the math didn't really work out for 28nm, but as you noted we're working off of MacRumors' measurements and not an actual die shot from the likes of Chipworks. It's too soon for TSMC's 20nm process, and the Intel thing still seems like a bit of a long shot, so I'm definitely waiting for a more authoritative word on this with bated breath. :-)

I wonder why Apple isn't leaning on Intel to fab its high end mobile chips on the FinFET process... it would give them such a leg up in the space that competitors would have to scramble hard to catch up.

What makes you think Intel is willing to fab other people's processor designs?

It has already stated it would be very careful picking foundry customers - only those withcomplementary products, not competing ones.

What makes you think Intel is willing to fab other people's processor designs?

Intel saying they are?

Quote:

Sunit Rikhi, vice president and general manager of Intel custom foundry, told Reuters last week his group is ready to take on a potential large, unidentified mobile customer, although he declined to discuss Apple specifically.

You have to remeber, if they are moving from Samsung/common plattform to TSMC we are not just talking about a die shrink, they will also synth the logic against a different gate library. If they pick one of the faster variations of the TSMC 28nm libraries but aim for the same frequencies they will likely gain a lot of area (since logic compilation tools will need to waste less gates to reach timing). This could in theory account for a larger differances than the move from 32 to 28 nm.

Just a couple points: First, NVIDIA is moving to Samsung for the 20nm process node, and I doubt that TSMC will ever deal with NVIDIA again after the Kepler blame-game fiasco. So Apple will have less competition for fab capacity at TSMC, although the rumor is that Samsung is closer to shipping 20nm parts than TSMC.

Aside: Watch out for Samsung in the graphics space, because they'll be learning a few tricks from NVIDIA as their new fab. Meanwhile, NVIDIA is on the precipice of a dramatic fall from grace that will probably shock a lot of casual observers. Hint: the Tegra 4i has no significant design wins. None. And they lost all three of the next-gen console designs. And Maxwell is slipping further and further to the right. And Project Denver suffered yet another scope change... It's pretty close to a catastrophic meltdown.

Second, Apple isn't going to be able to market a cheap iPhone by virtue of a process shrink. The SoC simply doesn't account for enough of the total bill of materials. If Apple actually intends to launch a cheap iPhone, the strategy would be to use a half-density (non-retina) display and fewer graphics cores, which will in turn permit a smaller battery. A process shrink would help, but only marginally.

Oh, and one last point: Apple will still be sourcing NAND flash from Samsung. They really don't have much of a choice in the matter, because Samsung practically controls the NAND market.

Intel has been cagey about fabbing things that are not Intel IP. The phrasing recently has been one step short of "Hell No!".

Not the least bit true. Even back as far as early 2011, what Intel has been saying is much closer to "we would prefer to produce our own IP, as the margins are higher".

Quote:

“If Apple or Sony (SNE) came to us and said ‘I want to do a product that involves your IA (Intel architecture) core and put some of my IP [intellectual property] around it’, I wouldn’t blink,” said Smith. “Then you get into the middle ground of ‘I don’t want it to be an IA core, I want it to be my own custom-designed core,’ and then you are only getting the manufacturing margin, (and) that would be a much more in-depth discussion and analysis.”

The SoC size and power consumption are not the reasons the iPad Mini has a low resolution display. Given Apple's track record so far and the way iOS's display stack is designed they're in a tough spot because doubling the screen resolution in both directions is extremely hard for an 8" display and multiplying by a non-integer amount (1.5X for example) would be far more complicated for everyone involved.

The mini will probably stay as it is until the panel from the 4, 4S, or 5 (they are all slightly different from each other) is cheap enough to put into it and the mini gets doubled. That said, Apple's strategies are sometimes hidden in plain sight- iOS 6 has dramatically improved auto-layout, equivalent to what OS X has. This could very well mean that they are preparing to release a new iPhone with a screen whose dimensions are different, that is to say not a 2X scale and not just a vertical stretch. Perhaps a 5" phone. They could then give developers the choice- hand-make a new layout like you did for the iPad, or transition to auto-layout depending what is best for you. The groundwork has been laid...

It would seem the process would have to be in the low 20s to create a die of ~50% of the area (36mm2) of the 32nm process die (64mm2)

If so, this could be a huge jump, much more so than merely the suggested 32nm to 28nm

Doubtful, as Apple doesn't have access to any fab better than 28 nm, unless Intel is involved (highly doubtful). Perhaps someone who knows more about how the scaling works could enlighten us as to how such a large die area drop could come from a 12% drop is gate size? The other possibility is that they made it single-core instead of dual.

This seems like another good sign for the longevity of the A5 platform. iPad 2 owners will continue to recieve high-quality software and updates, as will iPod touch, iPhone 4S, and iPad mini owners. It's not quite console longevity but it's a good thing nonetheless. This is assuming that the sub 32nm A5 will show up in another major Apple product like the so-called low-cost iPhone.

It's pretty awesome that the A5's GPU is still competitive with upper-end SoCs at this point in the game. Having a consistent, broadly available, high quality hardware platform to target will help developers make better software and improve the customer experience, not to mention resale value.

I guess I'm the only one stupid enough to ask this question. Why in the world would a chip from a NEWER, SMALLER process cost LESS than one from an OLDER, LARGER process?

You get more chips on a wafer and if wafer cost stays roughly constant or only increases by a moderate amount, the cost of making each chip will reduce. Of course, in the real world, it's going to be complicated by the process yield which might be bad enough to temporarily wipe out any cost savings but by the time the process matures, it should work out cheaper.

I guess I'm the only one stupid enough to ask this question. Why in the world would a chip from a NEWER, SMALLER process cost LESS than one from an OLDER, LARGER process?

The two big costs to manufacturing a chip (once all the R&D and die layout is done) are (i) the cost of the silicon wafer the chips are printed onto and (ii) the costs of sending that wafer through the production line.

If you have a smaller die, you can fit more chips on that same wafer, so each chip is cheaper. But you are right that there is an offsetting increase because the fab charges more for manufacturing on the more advanced process. But overall, you still end up with a cheaper chip.

Citigroup Global Markets' market research fellow, J.T. Hsu, pointed out that Apple began verifying TSMC's 20nm process in August this year and may begin risk production in November with the process. Volume production is expected to start in the fourth quarter of 2013, raising the possibility that TSMC will hike capital expenditure to US$11-12 billion in 2013 and 2014.

I'm having trouble figuring out how this chip could be on a 28 nm process. If the 32 nm A5 is 70 mm^2 and this is about 36 mm^2, that is consistent with a full node shrink, not a half node. Going from 45 to 32 nm, the die shrunk by 41%.

Now before I begin any crazy rumors, let me work this out. Theoretically, going from 32 to 28 nm could shrink the die by up to 23%. So what are the other options besides 20/22 nm? Maybe I'm not considering the full picture with metal layer widths, etc. and the difference (32 to 28) is larger than 23%. Also, Apple could be producing a single core variant instead of disabling cores. However, if the rest of the SOC stays the same, shaving off one A9 core just isn't going to save much area, and it's probably a lot harder than it sounds. Also, I haven't heard any speculation that TSMC 20 nm is in production. So the options are: 1. Macrumors sucks at measuring dies and the chip is really 7x7 mm or more. 2. Apple is running a trial chip on Intel 22 nm. 3. The scaling between TSMC or Samsung 28 nm and Samsung 32 nm is much greater than expected.

I'm betting a combination of 1 and 3.

Looking at some of the public die shots with my calibrated eyeball, dumping a core would probably save them more than 25%. If they had a big enough volume case for the single core version, they could easily have done that and gone to 28nm and gotten to the smaller size...

Not impressed with the A5X. Perhaps I got a dud, but my 3rd generation iPad certainly seems to run slower than my wife's iPad 2 with the A5. Both are a 45nm die. The retina display, however, more than makes up for that issue.

Not impressed with the A5X. Perhaps I got a dud, but my 3rd generation iPad certainly seems to run slower than my wife's iPad 2 with the A5. Both are a 45nm die. The retina display, however, more than makes up for that issue.

CPU wise the A5X shouldn't be any faster. In fact it could be slower as the GPU is apparently closer to the memory and may have priority access. On the GPU side the increased performance from the A5X is much smaller than the increase in resolution due to the retina screen so the GPU performance per pixel is lower in the iPad 3.

Looking at that layout it looks like it would be hard to remove a single core with out also removing some of the buses as the chip is surrounded by IO as is. A single core would lead to less space needed for logic but would also decrease the length of the perimeter of the chip where all the IO is.

Lets say its 28nm TSMC technology. The Apple A SoC team have to work overdrive. Its amazing what they have done in "3" years. From taking standard ARM Cores/PowerVR in the A4. Moving to a custom layout of A5.(That had for example dual channel DDR, Siri Voice cancellation, SIMD/Apple visaul processor. Then do a 32 nm tapeout of the A5. While doing this, make the desperate A5X since Apple first TMSC trail failed. Do custom own ARM /Swift cores for A6/A6X.

People forget that moving SoC from one process to another company requers a new tape out. This chip development have to cost a fourtune. And yes: Its a huge advantage for Apple since they are an integrated company. If they need DSPs/Noice cancellation, they can build it straight into their SoC. Not even Samsung can do that since they don't "control" Android.

Since 2010:A4A5 45nmA5X 45nmA5 32nmA6 32nmA6X 32nmand now A5 28 nm.(an educated guess it that A7 is on the way this summer. Remember last year before iPad3 event? Someone leaked a boot-up sequence with an unreleased 4 core chip. )

This is rapid development. Compare that to Intel who have stopped innovating same day AMD imploded in 2006: 4core 2.66--> 2013 6 core 3.5ghz. In 7 years intel have increased speed a bit over 100%.

2007 ARM: 416mhz. Today we have dual core 3ghz A9/ quid core A15 at 1.7ghz. That is a 1700% increase. Per MHZ A6 is faster then Atom. No wonder that X86 finally will be faced out.

Not impressed with the A5X. Perhaps I got a dud, but my 3rd generation iPad certainly seems to run slower than my wife's iPad 2 with the A5. Both are a 45nm die. The retina display, however, more than makes up for that issue.

CPU wise the A5X shouldn't be any faster. In fact it could be slower as the GPU is apparently closer to the memory and may have priority access. On the GPU side the increased performance from the A5X is much smaller than the increase in resolution due to the retina screen so the GPU performance per pixel is lower in the iPad 3.

I agree with your first statement. However, with two extra cores, the GPU should at least compensate for the extra pixel density. It certainly doesn't feel that way.